The PLA and China's Rejuvenation: National Security and Military Strategies, Deterrence Concepts, and Combat Capabilities

Abstract

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

Defeat, Not Merely Compete: China's View of Its Military Aerospace Goals and Requirements in Relation to the United States

“…[as well as other steps] intended to enhance the military's ability to prepare for, fight, and win wars." 7 Because most military innovation appears to involve incremental changes over past hardware, organizational, or operational practices, this definition is useful insofar as it does not define innovation exclusively in terms of major breakthroughs; this would set the bar too high. Examples of innovation include the PLA's use of missiles in place of manned bombers and the Chinese approach to defense industrial prototyping and transformation of conceptual designs into platforms that have achieved initial operational capability.…”

“…One expert interviewed for this study noted that the PLA's "vision of creating 'assassin's mace' [or trump card] weapons that can 'look far, shoot far, and shoot accurately' was driven by the 1999 embassy bombing." 7 The U.S. military's domination of Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War and the use of advanced helicopter and air power in the 1999 Kosovo conflict not only demonstrated the value of advanced airpower but also highlighted the gaps between the PLA and the U.S. military, spurring China's initial shift towards a greater emphasis on air power, informatization, and networkcentric (or in Chinese terms, "informationalized" [信息化]) warfare. The PLA's attempts to procure airborne early warning and control platforms from Israel in the late 1990s demonstrated a recognition that air power is not just about fighters but instead about [the linking together of a variety of] capabilities in a reconnaissance-strike kill-chain complex.…”

“…6 Recent Chinese writings consistently reflect the view that the primary threat to the accomplishment of the CCP's "China Dream" under Xi Jinping, as well as a major driver shaping the PLA's development of capabilities, is the presence, posture, and capabilities of the armed forces of the United States and the U.S. alliance network in the Asia-Pacific. 7 Lyle Goldstein of the U.S. Naval War College, reviewing Chinese writings on the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific under the Obama Administration, characterizes Chinese authors as seeing the rebalance as "worse than containment" and finds that "rivalry discourse has become conventional wisdom and even modish in China."…”

“…For example, in recent years China has undertaken substantial structural reforms, many of which retooled command and control (C2) relationships in ways that some leading PLA watchers assess as being inspired at least in part by the U.S. Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. 7 The PLA's reforms have transformed the former military regions into theater commands, which are now intended to receive and command forces provided by the PLA's service branches. In their new roles, the PLA Army (PLAA), PLAAF, and PLA Navy (PLAN) are intended to function more like force providers, playing a role similar to the "organize, train, and equip" function that defines the relationship between the U.S. military services and the unified combatant command structure.…”

“…viii examine how China selects between the options of copying 6 foreign powers and innovating 7 its own solutions to various operational military problems, as well as which areas China chooses to not compete in at all.…”